The Teaching Profession takes a “Slow Boat to China”
So Shanghai sits at the head of the 2013 PISA league tables (they are published every three
years) and the only country to score over 600 points. This equates to three years' schooling
above the OECD average. As we have seen in the past with Finland and other countries the
great marketing machinery of “Educational Tourism” has wheeled into action as people flock
to discover the secret of their success. I am not decrying the fact that teachers across the world
seek to glean good pedagogy from others, indeed I have availed myself of two trips to Finland
to do exactly the same but we should be wary of drawing conclusions from one country’s
performance no matter how exceptional it appears.
My clarion call for caution in this instance comes from the fact that one of the major
conclusions being drawn from the Shanghai model of teaching is that their results, especially
in Maths, rely heavily on the quality of their textbooks. This has placed the emphasis back on
the textbook as the core feature of a successful curriculum. Even Tim Oates chair of the
expert panel that reviewed the National Curriculum has waded in with his article “Textbooks
counts” including one section headed “The critical role of textbooks in maths pedagogy in
Shanghai” One gets the feeling from the groundswell of rising opinion that if we just had
great textbooks we would all achieve results in line with Shanghai. Put in a stark sentence like
that one can see the absurdity of such a stance (and I am not for one minute inferring that Tim
Oates or others of similar standing believe or indeed are saying this) but the teaching
profession tends to lose things in translation and certainly I have heard many a teacher discuss
the supposed value of “going back to textbooks”
As ever the answer is not the use of textbooks nor the apparent lack of them but as Dylan
Wiliam reminds us “pedagogy trumps all” and so it is in this case. If we are to gain anything
from the Shanghai experience then we need to extract the truth and meld it into secure
pedagogy not cherry pick a few unrelated and philosophically shallow ideas and seek to string
them together in the form of some semi-coherent classroom practice. I would take issue with
the notion that textbooks, and their younger cousin – the worksheet, are going to take teaching
and learning forward. As someone who believes that both teaching and learning should start
with the child not with the content, I struggle to see how the textbook can therefore be the
panacea to all our educational ills.
Bursting the Shanghai Bubble
Before we go overboard on the Shanghai success we must appreciate that it is data and all
data can be skewed. The wise man is the one who uses data to pose questions not the one who
uses it to find answers. So there are few things we should say about the “Shanghai success”
that might set their scores in some form of context.
It has to be pointed out, as indeed it was by Xiang, a teacher from Shanghai who visited our
school recently, that the scores relate only to one area of China and of course one of its most
prosperous areas. If like all other countries in the PISA league table the scores for China
overall were reported then there are some who believe that they might not maintain their
1
elevated position. Andreas Schleicher, who runs the PISA programme, has encouraged other
countries, specifically the UK, (TES 7th March 2014) to collate their own city data to make a
fairer comparison. He did go on to concede that in his own opinion, even if London were
lifted out of the UK it might still struggle to match the scores of Shanghai.
This factor is compounded by the socio-economic structure of Shanghai. China operates an
internal registration programme called “Hukou” which prevents rural migrants from accessing
urban public services and in particular, schools. Tom Loveless writes on this at length and is
in correspondence with PISA about the inequality of the Shanghai system and its potential to
skew international comparisons. He notes that the number of children without a Shanghai
hukou at age 14 is less than 40% of the number one would expect for children of that age. In
essence the education system within the city operates essentially as a selective system
creaming off the elite and excluding the potentially less advantaged families from the rural
areas. In September 2012 a fifteen year old Shanghai student, Zhan Haite undertook an
internet campaign against the hukuo as she was force d to return to Jiangxi to attend High
School because her parents were from that city. Even though she was born and educated in
Shanghai the hukuo system is hereditary and is designed to lock a family’s socio-economic
status across generations.
This is further evidenced by Loveless in a table which shows Shanghai in bottom position,
and indeed a total outlier for the expected percentage of 15 year olds to be found in the
population. The lack of children in this age group, says Loveless, is a demonstration of the
social engineering within the city. It is also true that whilst 84% of the high school graduates
in Shanghai go to college this compares starkly with the 24% nationally.
As Xiang pointed out when he came to our school, each family is only allowed one child
(although legislation now allows for two children, but only where the previous generation was
from a single child family). This means that parents have the opportunity to plough all their
energies and aspirations into a single child. Again this is compounded in Shanghai where
parents spend an extortionate amount of money on tutoring and additional weekend activities.
In fact the average Shanghai family spends 49,000 yuan (£5,200) on tutors in the High school
years, if one considers that the average wage in China is 42,000 yuan (£4,400) it is easy to see
why the city’s children make accelerated progress against their rural peers.
More interestingly is some research by Feniger (How to reason with PISA data) who found
that Chinese students in Australia outperform the children in Shanghai. The students from a
Chinese background in Australia scored an average of 615 in Maths compared to 600 for
those living in Shanghai. The conclusion drawn by “Save Our Schools” was not that Shanghai
excels but that “the top school results in east Asia were due to Confucian culture, homework,
coaching and “tiger mothers”. It may well be true that the cultural influences are stronger
than the education system in one Chinese City. As Tim Dodd states in his article for the
Financial Review such evidence does have the appearance of “casting doubt on the widely
held assumption that teaching methods in Chinese schools are superior.”
All of the above is not to decry or debunk Shanghai’s success out of hand, that would be an
unacceptable form of educational arrogance. In fact I applaud those who have attended the
country and sought to glean much from such a successful system. However there is a danger
in educational circles that we look at their success through superficial spectacles looking for
quick wins in our desire to “Raise Standards” The above arguments are therefore given to
counter this and encourage educationalists to look a little more deeply at what it is that allows
certain schools to perform at such a high level. Certainly if we are going to lift the concept of
using textbooks as a quick fix solution to all out mathematical ills then we need to temper
such a simplistic approach with some of the arguments presented above.
Are Textbooks and Worksheets the answer?
2
As Tim Oates states in his article “there has been a conscious of the movement in England
away from wide use of high quality textbooks” In fact only 10% of students in the UK have
teachers who use textbooks as a basis for instruction compared with 70% in Singapore and 95
in Finland. As stated above just because a few high performing schools systems use textbooks
does not mean this makes them the Holy Grail of educational achievement. As Oates accepts
there are plenty of high performing systems, he quotes Massachusetts as one example that
does not have a central textbook focus and yet still outscore many jurisdictions.
All this and the above debate on Shanghai’s scores draws us back to Dylan Wiliam’s
comment that “pedagogy trumps all”. So if we are to use textbooks or worksheets then the
rationale should be based on secure pedagogy not just centred on what the school down the
road is doing.
So what is the pedagogical basis for learning?
The Wyche holds to a constructivist, child centric approach to learning. The key question
therefore is how do teacher based worksheets fit into that pedagogy.
In my own mind they don’t.
Worksheets muddy the learning waters at so many levels. Some of the key features of the
worksheet culture that should cause us some concern are as follows:
Constructivism and the Mantle of the Expert
True learning is undertaken by children themselves and occurs when they are placed in an
arena where they can explore (or construct) learning in their own cognitive framework. In
terms of Maths this will lead to a classroom that has many open ended tasks and the focus will
lean towards constant reasoning and dialogue as the children seek to develop mathematical
concepts and the understanding behind them. The worksheet culture is virtually the antithesis
of this.
For instance the worksheet that consolidates the number bonds to 10 poses the following
thought in the child’s mind; “I know the teacher has taught me these so I must now attempt to
get them right just like she taught me” The blank sheet of paper with the question posed
“How many ways can you find to make the number 10?” sends the message to the child that
they are being trusted to explore this concept for themselves. The subliminal subtext is that
the teacher believes they have the capability within themselves to demonstrate competency in
this area. I choose to see this as giving the child “The Mantle of the Expert” The learning, and
more importantly the concept of trusting the child to learn, is given to the child and empowers
him to become a self motivated learner. So whilst the results on the paper for the two
activities may look virtually identical i.e. both pieces of paper will have the number bonds to
10 on them; the psychological difference in the mind of the child and the consequent impact
on the classroom learning culture transmitted through the two approaches are poles apart.
The Locus of Control
Worksheets and textbooks have a natural tendency to focus the learning away from the child
and back onto the teacher’s agenda. Thereby creating a culture where locus of control is held
by the teacher rather than the child. This sends a powerful cultural message. It heralds to the
child that the teacher fulfils the role of the expert and is in a position where they therefore
have the “right” to pose the questions that the pupil should be able to answer. The teacher will
then check through the marking to determine whether the child was “right or not” thereby
cementing further the “teacher as expert” mentality. The constructivist approach places the
child in the role of the expert and creates a learning culture where they are able to discover
and explore for themselves using the teacher as a guide and a facilitator. This is not just
semantics; the sub-conscious messages given to children as the worksheets are handed out
should not be under estimated.
3
The Glass Ceiling
Related to this, are the limitations that the worksheets place upon the child and their learning.
Using the above example there would be nothing to stop a child writing 4.5 + 5.5 even if they
were Year 2. The former approach prevents any such exploration by the child because the
teacher has set the boundaries and they are rigidly determined by what the teacher thinks the
child should do. Whilst this approach places limits on the learning of all children, it is
especially stifling for the more able. Many have the ability to move beyond our own
expectations if they are given an arena in which they could explore. Also we all know that
learning is not linear. For some children, in any given lesson, a concept may just click and
suddenly they are able to achieve way ahead of their years for reasons no-one fully
understands. The open ended task allows them to continue to learn at their new found pace.
Convergent and Divergent Thinking
The emphasis on performance causes the thinking in the classroom to become very narrow
and convergent; this is the antithesis of everything we are trying to build in a thinking
classroom. The child will start to live in a cultural bubble where they come to see the goal of
each lesson as being able to “answer the questions at the end”. Imagine a staff meeting where
no-one was allowed home until they had answered ten questions at the end. Throughout the
meeting your attention would be drawn away from the richness of pedagogical debate and
down a track where you would be seeking to second guess what the questions might be from
the tenure of the conversation and discussion so that you could go home on time. We cannot
place children in a similar environment where the learning narrows and they focus on the
questions that they will have to answer at the end.
Creativity
The beauty of the emergent approach is that it allows the children to explore Maths in its own
right. They have the freedom to move around the Mathematical landscape exploring concepts
on the way and developing their own understanding. The worksheet culture closes all this
down, both for the teacher and the child. The teacher is aware that if the children are to
complete the worksheet they must teach them the appropriate material and at that point the
lesson focus switches tangibly from child to curriculum content. For the child the lesson
becomes a more narrow activity, driven by the teacher towards the final end goal of the
assessment questions. This will have a detrimental impact on both the teaching and learning.
The Nature of Learning
The nature of learning is social in nature. Vygotsky’s view was not just constructivism but
very much “social constructivism” i.e. that we create our learning in a social arena alongside
others. Neil Mercer points out is that the most powerful tool for this is “talk”. All learning
should therefore take place in a social context that has peer to peer exploring as a focus. The
worksheet predicates against this placing the child in a role where they are working in an
individualised context and being asked for the right or wrong answer rather than exploring the
full orb of learning in all its breadth.
True Learning and Understanding
Many would argue that the worksheet is not a learning tool but an assessment tool. If this is
the case then by definition it cannot be used or seen as a powerful tool for learning. You
cannot test something that you have not learnt so to give a child a worksheet on the principles
of aerodynamics would not be useful. They need to have learnt the concept before they are
tested. For this reason the worksheet is a very weak tool for learning although some might
argue it is a powerful tool for assessment.
Assessment Tool
If one accepts that the worksheet is an assessment tool then how useful is it? The mantra from
the teaching profession is that the results from the pen and paper tests of the SAT scores are
4
unreliable. If this is the case then why should we assume that the pen and paper tests of the
worksheet are any different? The assessment facility of the worksheet is limited to testing the
knowledge in a given area not necessarily the understanding. As we have seen here at The
Wyche in the past, there are children well into Key Stage 2 that can calculate 23% of 345 and
yet don’t fully appreciate the numerical process or indeed have understanding of the basic
principles of percentages. Surely what we need to test is the understanding not simply the
ability to calculate (though this may have its place on occasions). The challenge comes in
designing a worksheet that demonstrates children’s understanding. I would venture the
opinion that it cannot be done and that even if it can, an alternative assessment tool such as an
explanation either to the teacher, a peer or in written form, would be far more effective.
Right or Wrong
If the focus of the worksheet is on the “testing” of what the child has been taught, this places
the child in a black and white situation where they are either right or wrong. This again sends
a powerful cultural message to the child. Whilst one cannot get away from the fact that there
are always elements of the academic process where concepts are right or wrong, the learning
journey should not be so clear cut. Learning works best in the land of the grey not the land of
the black and white. Learning is “messy” and it involves a complexity of understanding and
thinking that cannot be reduced down to a few questions on a piece of paper at the end of a
lesson.
Right or Wrong By-product
A powerful by-product of the right or wrong culture generated by the worksheet is that it
leaves children feeling emotionally vulnerable. Each child should be getting work wrong on a
regular basis as without this I would question whether any learning is actually taking place.
However we need to keep children on the journey where they see learning as a continual
process of refinement and an expanding of their own knowledge and understanding. The
hiatus caused by a worksheet given at the end of each lesson shifts the emphasis from
continual learning to one of achievement and the requirement to succeed. It places the child in
a position where they are more likely to focus on the successful completion of the task rather
than the more holistic element of learning. This in turn will develop a performance rather than
a learning culture in the classroom.
Decoding of the Worksheet
As many have observed in working with the SAT papers a child’s ability to achieve is as
much about decoding the worksheet as much as about understanding the curriculum concept
being taught. There are many children who know the Maths but struggle to decode the context
of a rather bland, 2-dimensional worksheet in which they are asked to work. We should be
setting all assessments in real life, transferable arenas wherever possible.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is interesting to note that those who have visited Shanghai through the Maths
Hub project return presenting a very different picture of teaching from the rather bland
stereotype of children in rows working from textbooks. Whilst it is undoubtedly true is that
the textbook is a central feature within the teaching system what teachers are more stuck by is
the reasoning that goes on within the class. The constant dialogue between teacher and child
as they explore concepts at an ever increasing depth challenges the idea that the textbooks are
the driving force behind the success. The mid-term report on the Shanghai exchange
programme noted that “each lesson is designed in minute detail; each step choreographed;
each question planned meticulously, and follow-up questions, according to a pupil’s first
response, also planned.” I would suggest it is this focus on quality first teaching that is
reaping the rewards not the narrowing and closing down of a curriculum driven by a set of
multiplication calculations found on page 42.
5